People send me stuff.
Finally … finally! … a person trained by Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project agreed to face off in a public debate on global warming. As WUWT readers may know, trying to get one of these folks to debate a skeptic has been an impossible task…until now. Full video follows, running about 59 minutes.
While I don’t know the details, I suspect the video quality has to do with an apparent long standing policy of Gore’s presenters refusing to allow their presentations to be video taped. My impression is that this appears to be a clandestine recording made by an audience member.
From an email I received:
============================================================
Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project squared off against The Heartland Institute in a global warming debate January 8 in Tallahassee, Florida. More than 260 people attended the hour-long debate, which resulted in standing room only at the Tallahassee Elks Club Lodge, which hosted the debate.
Ray Bellamy, a Florida State University faculty member who gives public presentations on behalf of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, argued humans are causing a global warming crisis. Taylor countered that global warming activists have proven none of four important factors they need to show in order to demonstrate a human-induced global warming crisis.
“I am very happy that this debate is now available on the Internet so people can see the for themselves, without having to wade through media filters, who possesses and presents the best evidence in a fair and balanced debate,” said Taylor.
“I encourage people to watch the debate and then share it with friends, family and acquaintances. So long as people have access to the truth, I believe the truth will always prevail,” said Taylor.
=============================================================
Source: Alyssa Carducci
The YouTube page says:
Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James Taylor debates Ray Bellamy, M.D., a Tallahassee Orthopedic Surgeon at the Elks Club Lodge at 276 North Magnolia Drive in Tallahassee, Florida on Jan. 8, 2013.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
James Taylor was very effective. I actually felt sorry for his opponent, who seemed out of his depth. When Bellamy talked about the (spurious) “97% of scientists” I thought he was just another victim of alarmist propaganda. But at the very end, when Taylor called him out for misattributing a quote to Joe Bast. It became obvious to the whole audience that he had been caught telling a lie, and he knew it was a lie.
———————–
Mr Lynn wrote:
I get you’re point Lynn. Words are weapons and important. I describe the other camp collectively as alarmist.
Its accurate, succinct and not likely to be taken as derogatory. And it gets the point across that the issue is not just about ‘warming’ -it is about to what extent that warming is man-made and to what extent is it (if any) a cause for alarm.
We are called “deniers” in a deliberate attempt to ‘frame the narrative’ and portray us us cranks or worse.
My problem with self-identifying as a “climate realist” is that either side can appropriate it, and doing so looks like we are using the same tactics as the alarmists. Calling yourself “realist” implies that your opponent is a fantasist, delusional or similar. However, accurate that may be, in certain cases, it doesn’t help the debate.
I think Taylor carried the day in the above video because he didn’t sink to his opponent’s level.
cd says:
January 12, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Joe you’re a communist – surely the state should be doing the buying!
———————————————————————————————
It should be, CD, but apparently they haven’t met their 5 year plan this time round (something to do with our Brothers in the government spending too much time doing their expenses) so it’s everyone for themselves again 🙁
(Anna wrote, January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm)
Anna thought she’d crawl amongst the ‘denier-gorillas in the mist’ of fossil-fueled obfuscation, and get us “alpha-males” all worked-up and thumping our chests. Thanks Anna, you are beyond parody, your post was the best laugh I’d had all day.
Bet Kochs would pay large for a little anna DNA. If they could successfully clone her they would possess the most potent cure for alarmism known to man. Weapons grade ignorant.
Here are some suggestions for JT’s next debate:
1. If the “melting of Antarctica” is cited, the counter should be:
A) The melting estimate was cut in half within the last six months. Are you still using the earlier figures?
B) There is no “melting” occurring in Antarctica, apart from the Peninsula, nor will there be in the 21st century, because the temperature there never gets within ten degrees of freezing. If Antarctica is losing mass, it is because of increased sublimation of ice to water vapor due to a combination of decreased cloudiness, increased windiness, decreased humidity, and decreased snowfall–which is due to the vagaries of weather, not global warming.
2. If the increased risk of coastal flooding is cited, the response should not be that flooding from swollen rivers has decreased. It should be that the low-lying islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, that we used to hear so much about, are not being impacted as predicted five or ten years ago. (The impacts that are observed are due to human mismanagement. The sea level isn’t rising at their locations.)
3. If a bet-challenge is made, and it is declined on the grounds the Dr. gave (that warming will accelerate later in the century, so it won’t warm at 1/10th its ultimate rate in the next ten years), then offer to bet that it won’t rise by 0.15 degrees in the next ten years, which is roughly the IPCC’s lower bound estimate (IIRC). He can hardly decline that bet–and it’s at least 50/50 that it won’t happen.
4. If it is claimed that the in creased melting of Arctic ice will cause increased warming of the Arctic Ocean due to decreased albedo, the counter should be that the effect will be the reverse, since at such a high latitude the sun’s rays strike the surface at such a low angle that they are mostly reflected away–and meanwhile the lack of insulating ice is allowing heat to escape from the water.
5. If the 97% survey figure is cited, respond not only with a counter to the ridiculous Doran survey, but also to the Anderegg survey, as was done recently here thusly:
6. If the opponent hands out literature in the lobby, leave out in the lobby, and/or offer to give out after the talk, double-sided business cards containing links (in tiny-URL form) to contrarian sites containing contrarian arguments and counterpoints. (Heartland or Anthony could/should create these for use by all of us, not just you. Anthony could create a crowdsourced thread where link-nominations could be made and sell them at a profit, like his calendars.)
More later, when I think of them.
@Eric H.
“Eric H. says:
January 12, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Anna,
You are long on rhetoric but short on facts. Pick a point and make a fact based argument. You may want to re-research your facts on the funding of Heartland by the Koch brothers. Once you have done that and posted that you were mistaken we can go on to discuss the facts about extreme weather. I say this in the most friendly non-bullying manner…”
Eric, I am constantly fielding this type of argument, and don’t know how to refute it (other than saying that truth is truth, it does not matter that you don’t like the organization that sponsored the research). So how is Heartland funded and (forgive my ignorance) how does one find something like that out?
Thanks!
Anna says:
January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm
=====================
Did you have any facts to back you up or just pack of emotion laden lies? Come back and tell me any truths or are you really that ignorant.
I mean really while it is easily something you can look up tell me exactly how much the phantom menance of the Koch brothers fund the Heartland institute for. Oh and what did they fund them to do? I give you a hint it wasn’t very much money and it wasn’t anything to do with global warming or the environment. You should have no problem coming back with accurate information on that minor easy to research bit of fact. But I don’t think you will bother since really looking into it would reveal just how ignorant you are and I don’t expect you to actually follow through.
You make this claim.
[i]”Taylor sounded almost psychotic, “There is no evidence of drought, there is no evidence of deserts increasing, there is no evidence of increasing tornadoes or super storms”[/i]
Ok, you say this is not true. Great show us your proofs we will talk with you about them but make certain you understand the science. If you don’t your likely to not do well. If you bring real hard science not post modern science to the table people will discuss it with you.
I wish I was rich or made money from oil that would be just cool but hey I don’t make that kind of money. Oh do realize that big oil is behind the major environmental groups and had a big hand in pushing the global warming they fund to the tune of millions global warming research because it benefits them.
PS: If the point is made that “we must move away from fossil fuels,” the counter should be:
A) That that’s what the EU has attempted to do, and that it has found that the supposed alternative energy sources it has invested in were wildly over-hyped as to their performance, and that their example-setting has not shamed or inspired the rest of the world to follow.
B) That some form of nuclear energy would be a reasonable “alternative.” (Plus various no-regrets measures like increased use of diesel and natural gas vehicles, increased insulation, increased research money on potential breakthroughs, etc.)
Winnebagos dogging lightning strikes? Was it just me?
That’s so sad; because them things ain’t that maneuverable!
🙂
Matt says:
January 12, 2013 at 11:25 am
I wonder what Singer really said re. cigarettes 🙂
——————————————————————————————-
Here’s what Singer says he said.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/second_hand_smoke_lung_cancer.html
Relevant points:
o Doesn’t smoke himself
o Father was a heavy smoker who died at a relatively young age from emphysema
o Finds scond hand smoke offensive and asserts that it has to be harmful
o Called out shonky science promoted by the EPA (details iin the article).
A similar target of hatred by the anti-tobacco lobby is Geoffrey Kabat, author of “Hyping Health Risks”. He has similar attitudes to SInger on smoking. He was one of the leads in the study the anti-tobacco lobby likes to castigate as being funded by big tobacco. According to Kabat, the study was originally funded by the Americal Cancer Society (or similar – I can’t put my hand on my copy of his book). However, when the numbers didn’t come out the way the sponsors wanted, they withdrew support. Tobacco companies provided the funding to complete the study. Facts are a real problem for ideological activists 🙂
Google is your friend. 🙂
The Heartland Institute’s Wiki entry gives some details of its funding. You have to put it in context before getting too excited. Compare the Heartland Institute’s funding with the amounts spent on trying to prove CAGW. Story. In the contest to influence the hearts and minds of the public, the playing field isn’t exactly even.
Dodging-not dogging sorry!
Climate change funding is buried in every federal department with a lions share being in the Defense budget. This is typical behaviour for government. The vampires do not much care about the merits. They always care about the funding. After WWII the Air Force budget was booming because they could make the case that the Army and Navy had been superseded by the atomic bomb. That was technically true but turned out to be false in application due to MAD. Not to be outdone the Army came up with the Pentomic Divison concept. In theory this was a division that could “fight on the nuclear battlefield” That’s what all those tests in Nevada with soldiers watching the nuclear tests were about. Of course the Pentomic Division was nicknamed the ashtray brigade. But the money did flow.
What is really sad is that I don’t have to watch the video to know who made an ass of themselves since it is common knowledge that the CAGW believer runs on pseudoscience babblings and quickly get snotty and worse are the loser in the end.
I have met many CAGW believers over the years but they share a common defect.A serious deficiency in following the scientific Method paradigm and instead follow eco-political propaganda that is often unbelievably stupid.
So no I will not waste my time watching yet another smackdown of a foul mouthed CAGW believer as I have seen it many times already.
I have two suggestions for next time. 1) insert the words taxpayer funded data sets along the source agency name and 2) don’t stray off into the benefits of a warming world and attribute that to agricultural productivity, it is a distraction and partly wrong anyway. Just stick with model fails, uhi, solar influence, ocean cycles, and perhaps a short quiz on what percent co2 is of atmosphere. Of course they present a ripe target on Antarctic ice issues also.
Anna says:
January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm
=============
Anna, really ?
Your writing betrays you.
On the subject of funding, from Netright Daily and NYT:
Now the biggest and oldest environmental group in the U.S. finds itself caught on the horns of that dilemma. TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking—to help fund the Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. Though the group ended its relationship with Chesapeake in 2010—and the Club says it turned its back on an additional $30 million in promised donations—the news raises concerns about influence industry may have had on the Sierra Club’s independence and its support of natural gas in the past.
I suppose you could say it’s okay because they stopped, but only is it okay if they paid EVERY PENNY back and did not accept money from ANY other corporations of any kind. There’s no mention of such action.
8. If a point is made regarding methane emissions from melting permafrost, the counter is:
@James Baldwin Taylor:
Of course, if there is anything I enjoy more than exposing the weak evidence and weak thinking of an Al Gore-trained global warming activist, it is exposing the weak evidence and weak thinking of an Al Gore-trained global warming activist in front of 200 of his friends and supporters.
Truth for truth’s sake,
– James
Nice work! I was also amused by the usual infantile “Progressive” cat-calls/acting-out-behavior from some in the audience, especially, the “let someone else talk” directed at you during your official closing statement! You handled their attempts to disparage and interrupt you quite well.
Anna,
I found your arguments very persuasive and am keen to follow them up. I’d be very grateful if you would recommend some links to sites with the new intelligent information you mention.
Kind regards,
John
You have a point, but I think ‘Realist’ raises the truly scientific side of the debate over the ideological ‘Alarmist’ one, and ‘Skeptic’ just smacks of a ragtag minority, not very different from ‘Heretic’. That’s why I said we should adopt ‘Realist’ for ourselves, to prevent letting the Alarmists have it.
In point of fact, maybe the best label for the Alarmists is ‘Climatist’, that is, true-believers, members of a quasi-religious cult that has elevated a pseudo-scientific idea to the status of dogma. It’s not science any more.
That is to say, when we’re dealing with the likes of the Goracle, or the reprehensible Ed Malarkey, it is essential to make clear that these are not people who deal in science, or even facts; they are ideologues, and have to be treated as such.
/Mr Lynn
PS Mods: Corrected blockquote: please delete previous. Sorry.
Anna was a hit and run. I doubt that she even read any of the well thought out replies. It’s a shame really. I would like to reach someone like her–young, idealistic, someone who could do good if they understood the dynamics of what happened to them–how they are sucked in to other’s agendas and misled to support those agendas. Does Gore come to mind? Look how much he made off people like her.
Gail thainks for the petition reply–I copied it to save–very well written and should have been submitted as a post.
Thanks Mr. Taylor and Anthony for posting this. Great read.
It is very hot in Aust at the moment and we are seeing all sorts of guff from our Bureau of Meterology about having to find new shadings for heat on the map. Who would have thought a heat wave in Australia in January – gee thats never happened before. Funny in Adelaide and Melbourne it s rainy and cool today. I liken the debate with the CAGW crowd as a debate with creationlists – they wanna believe. The MD was embarassing and goes to the thing of the skeptics know more about science thats why we don’t buy it. We look at the data and make up our own minds while the sheeple merely get swept along, just as Dylan put it ‘the time before and the time before that’.
Joe says:
January 12, 2013 at 2:49 pm
==========
Nice comment, the feeling is mutual I’m sure.
Anna says:
January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm
What is the alias for this blog site? Bubba Sr and Bubba Jr. angry old southern white man and his son. Tea Party gerry mandering losers blog blah blah blah…..
Must be hard to let go of all that alpha male aggression and control on the rest of us.. All new intelligent information is scoffed at first, and usually in a bullying type fashion. which is what is happening in this blog. [etc.]
Mr. Saul Alinsky
“Anna”, you fool no one with your own “alias”! Personalize, Demonize…avoid speaking on the actual substance of the issue…instead be sexist, racist, ageist, geographist, elitist…be infantile!